Rajasthan High Court Denies State's Plea To Withdraw Case Against BJP MLA Accused Of Forging Class 10 Marksheet To Contest Elections

The Rajasthan High Court rejected State's plea to withdraw a criminal case against Churu MLA Harlal Singh from BJP, who is accused of using forged Class 10 marksheet along with his nomination papers for contesting the election of Zila Parishad member in 2015. 

Terming it a “gruesome crime involving misuse of public office and public money”, the division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that State could not justify how withdrawing the case would lead to broadening ends of public justice, public order and peace.

"It is noteworthy that as per allegations, accused fabricated mark-sheet of Class X, on the basis of which, he submitted nomination papers for contesting the election of Member, Zila Parishad, in which he was declared elected and held the public office and utilized public money. Such matters of a gruesome crime involving misuse of public office and public money do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused or that he is elected Member of Legislative Assembly. It is pertinent to note at this stage that in the case in hand, after filing of the charge-sheet against the accused - Harlal Singh, cognizance of offences has been taken against him and charges have also been framed".

The court also observed that the MLA's revision petition challenging cognizance order (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.36/2020 Harlal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & anr.) had already been dismissed in 2023 by a  passed by a coordinate bench.

On the Advocate General's submission that charges framed against accused are defective, the bench said that this can be raised in the pending revision petition challenging the order framing charge. 

It thereafter said:

"It is noteworthy that during the course of arguments, learned Advocate General has not been able to satisfy the Court as to how broad ends of public justice, public order and peace would met in withdrawing the prosecution nor has he satisfied that present application has been made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart of stifle the process of law. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no case to exercise the power under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the applicant"

Underscoring the principles and rulings by the Supreme Court on the provision, the Court stated that the permission to withdraw from prosecution could not be granted mechanically merely on the ground of good public image of an accused or that the accused was elected member of Legislation Assembly.

The complaint was registered in 2019, alleging that the MLA had submitted Class 10 marksheet and certificate along with his nomination papers for contesting election of Member, Zila Parishad, in 2015, which were forged. To withdraw this case, the State had filed an application before the high court. 

It was argued that there was no evidence on record to establish the allegations. Further, it was submitted that the election of Zila Parishad was contested in 2015 and the term expired in 2020. The qualification of Class X was also removed. Hence, no ends of public justice shall be met with proceedings of this case.

After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Abdul Kareem and others vs. State of Karnataka, in which it was held that the application u/s 321, CrPC could not be allowed only on the ground that the State decided to do so. The Court had to see whether the application was made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle injustice if the consent was given.

Further reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Rajendra Kumar vs. State through Special Police in which it was held that it was Public Prosecutor's duty to inform the grounds of withdrawal to the Court, and it was Court's duty to authorize a search of the reason. Both had a duty to protect administration of criminal justice against possible misuse of Section 321.

The Court said, “If we examine the record of the case in light of provisions of Section 321 of Cr.P.C. coupled with the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Ajith & ors. (supra) and the position of law annunciated in the cases of Abdul Kareem and others (supra) as well as Rajendra Kumar (supra), it is well settled that the permission for withdrawal from prosecution cannot be granted mechanically. Withdrawal must be for proper administration of justice and only in the public interest. In the present case, neither the State Government has submitted the report regarding satisfaction of the learned Public Prosecutor nor the grounds/reasons for withdrawing the First Information Report...registered...against the accused - Harlal Singh have been assigned in the minutes of the meeting held on 26.11.2024"

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: State of Rajasthan v Chimna Ram

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 287

Click Here To Read/Download Order